HI Jonas,
> It certainly matters. If for example if method 1 or 2 were used then
> no prefix mappings would be found at all in the DOM output from a HTML
> parser. So it really *does* matter how you do prefix mapping. And as
> far as DOM 2 goes, I think 1 or 2 are the intuitive solutions so if
> we're not using those then I *really* think it's important to specify
> so.
>
> In any case, I think I've spent enough time on this issue. I can't
> really articulate the problem any more than I have. I hope this issue
> is solved by the time last call rolls around.
I see that you are frustrated, but you seem to think that the issue is
that no-one understands your position.
We *do* understand your position, and are trying to explain to you,
that -- with all due respect -- it is based on a misunderstanding.
You are looking at implementation specifics, and as many people have
explained, implementation is not the issue. This is because the spec
is defining an algorithm, which entitles people to implement things
how they see fit, on whatever platform they want to write for, using
whatever language they want to use.
Now some will reply that, surely you must take implementation details
into account.
Whilst we could debate that philosophical point, in relation to spec
writing, the fact is that whilst we were debating it, plenty of people
would have already implemented RDFa parsers, in pretty much every
language that has so far been mentioned on this thread.
So it really doesn't matter whether we think the spec should or
shouldn't spell out implementation details; as Toby implies, it's
academic, because there are already a ton of implementations that show
that it's possible.
Regards,
Mark
--
Mark Birbeck, webBackplane
mark.birbeck@webBackplane.comhttp://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck
webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
London, EC2A 4RR)